WHAT CAN YOU SAY ON THER DISCUSSION POST? YOUR OPINION?

Discussion 1.

From the article, "Let's Be Blunt: It's Time to End the Drug War", my partner Chris and I pinpointed the argument claim as marijuana should be legal because the drug war is an impracticable idea (Carden, 2012, para. 1). He did include a qualifier, where he stated, "That probably means that using drugs is a terrible idea. It doesn't mean, however, that the drug war is a good idea" (para. 2). He first backs his claim with the negative consequences found with the prohibition (para. 3). The evidence that supports this reason was with the inelasticity of the demand curve for drugs, as an increase in drug consumption won't cause a change in prices (para. 3). The second reason that backs his claim is with the obvious danger of the drug war that's associated with crime and violence (para. 6). The evidence that supports this reason is with American cities becoming war zones due to drug warriors (para. 6).

An opposing audience may respond to this argument with a negative reaction as the drug war could compromise their safety. Evidence that supports this is with the recent conference with the Association of Private Enterprise Education. The article stated, "Private property is less secure because it can be seized if it is implicated in a drug crime" (para. 7). The government wants to promise safety, although it could be jeopardized due to "innocence until proven guilty" (para. 7 & 8).

RESPOND :

Discussion 2.

• We believe the claim of the argument is to end the drug war, but the author expresses many point of views such as "Should marijuana be legalized?". The author, Carden, includes two qualifier's in his article which are probably and certain. The qualifier word probably in his article is from the sentence "That probably means that using drugs is a terrible idea". He uses this sentence to give readers a mindset that the dangers and negative outcomes of drugs are completely true. The writer also communicates another qualifier, certainly in the sentence "We are no safer, and we are certainly less free because of concerted efforts to wage war on drugs". By reading this phrase it not only makes us as readers think twice about how drugs has played a role in our societies, but it has an impact on our lives to see if we make the right or wrong choices with the use of these substances. One reason why we believe Carden gives us an insight of this topic is, "Without meaning to the drug warriors have turn American cities into war zones, and eroded the very freedoms we hold dear". Another insight he states was "Not surprisingly, the drug war has turned some of our neighborhoods into war zones. We are warehousing productive young people in prisons at an alarming rate all in the name of a war that cannot be won". The effect that the "narcotized remedies" has on our world has overall corrupted our homes, lives, and children's future. Two credible sources that the journalist has gotten evidence from was Albert Einstein, and Jeffrey Miron. In the article Carden has shared the definition of insanity by Mr. Einstein which states "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". He also quotes economist and drug policy expert Jeffrey Miron who estimates that "we would have a lot less violence without a war on drugs". From these two pieces of information Carden enforces his opinion that it is time to stop the insanity and end prohibition. Although many individuals might agree with the author, others may feel that this article is wrong and that we should forbid such poison. We believe from this article it will cause many contradictive arguments from a skeptical audience due to the author stating "if there were no illegal drugs there would be no war". It will overall become a chaotic conversation because of the many pros and cons this subject bring forth.

RESPOND: